Folks,

Every arms manufacture puts out these videos about how their weapon is the best and would defeat anyone elses. This is the one put out by the Russians for the T-90 and how it can defeat any tank including the Abrams. What makes it interesting is it shows a lot of things in detail including the guided 125mm rounds and the auto loader. It is in Russian but still worth watching.


Abrams vs T.-90 Video



.

Oh so you think they've solved problem with the autoloader ripping arms off ?

2 things that Russians know how to do better than anyone else.

Vodka and Arms.

Tell the Iraqi tankers who have faced the Abrams how great Russian tanks are. Oh wait, I guess you can't. They're all dead.
I'm sure there are a lot of retired Russian Generals thanking their God they didn't have to one on one with the Abrams.

quote:

Originally posted by gumbydammit:
Tell the Iraqi tankers who have faced the Abrams how great Russian tanks are. Oh wait, I guess you can't. They're all dead.
I'm sure there are a lot of retired Russian Generals thanking their God they didn't have to one on one with the Abrams.

Yeh that is true, in the Gulf War the Iragis had around 3500 Russian tanks and we had just 1500 M1A1 tanks and we blew the crap out of the Iraqis in just a few days, the same with their Air Force. There was another time when just 2 damaged Isralie tanks took out at least 60 Russian tanks in the dessert that was in the Young Kapor War.

Young Kapor????
How about Yom Kippur. Or, the October War.
Also, it is Israeli not Isralie.
What kind of dessert this this battle take place in? A bowl of pudding? Perhaps you meant desert instead.

The T-90 may or may not be a match for the Abrams (I hope it isn't) but it shows the Russians took a lesson from what happened to their tanks when American rockets an shells started falling. The little round things to each side of the main gun here are laser sensor/jammers that not only can detect and jam laser designators, but automatically swing the turret and aim the gun at the source. Both shells and missiles can be fired from the main gun which can (supposedly) hunt down and kill the source, whether it is a ground or air target (Apache Helicopter/ low level jet), while at the same time deploying smokescreen grenades around the tank to obscure its image to anyone trying to shoot at it - -

Since this can all happen without the crew even seeing the target until the sensors tell them they are in danger and going into action itself - that is a very formidable Weapon, indeed!

quote:

Tell the Iraqi tankers who have faced the Abrams how great Russian tanks are. Oh wait, I guess you can't. They're all dead.

Not the ones who jumped out of their tanks and ran away, or surrendered, the moment they saw the M1 Abrams coming.

quote:

Originally posted by gumbydammit:
Young Kapor????
How about Yom Kippur. Or, the October War.
Also, it is Israeli not Isralie.
What kind of dessert this this battle take place in? A bowl of pudding? Perhaps you meant desert instead.

Sorry I can't spell to save my live.

Iraq did not have T-90. More likely some t-80 or t-72b
Or am i wrong??

The Russian Army was portrayed as every Soldier was 10 feet tall and bullet proof. They were faster than a speeding locomotive, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, etc.

Soviet equipment was supposedly VASTLY superior to anything NATO had. The NATO Troops, would simply be a speedbump on the Soviet drive to the English Channel. yada yada yada

The T-90 is produced by the same folks who built the T-72 and T-80s. Those tanks were supposed to be superior to the Leopards, Abrams, LeClercs and Challengers. The sales pitch was, they were better than the Merkava too. Reality has shown otherwise.

But the statistics is still there -T-90 bested Leopard (Hit more targets than Leopard in the same conditions) and Abrams lost a caterpillar on the tankodrome, whereas t-90 did not.

Some things to think about...

Now tell the WHOLE truth PanzerMeister, the M60A3 TTS with STAID had a better first hit record than the M1. Newer doesnt always mean everythings better... but that was from a static fighting position, NOT run and gun.

I bet the Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), without a turret is more survivable than the T-90

I forgot to tell-According to the video.
Silly me.

What is STAID?

It may or may-not be a better tank than the Abrams, but the REAL difference is the crew and we have the finest trained TANK crews in the world and we've proved it in EVERY War since WWII.

"It's not the weapons you use, but the hands you put them in"

quote:

Originally posted by mplcs:
It may or may-not be a better tank than the Abrams, but the REAL difference is the crew and we have the finest trained TANK crews in the world and we've proved it in EVERY War since WWII.

Well it's both how good the tank is and how good the crew is, if you have a good crew in a T-54 go against a M1A2 with a bad crew I think the M1 will win anyways, so both are necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by mplcs:
It may or may-not be a better tank than the Abrams, but the REAL difference is the crew and we have the finest trained TANK crews in the world and we've proved it in EVERY War since WWII.

I agree, but that not all that matters. If the tanks won't even start or run right, you have problems. It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles the T-90 has, if the Russian Army is selling off parts for vodka and food. And if the Russians were to sell some to, say Iran, their soldiers just don't have the know-how and experience to match us tank vs tank.

quote:

Originally posted by slick556:

quote:

Originally posted by mplcs:
It may or may-not be a better tank than the Abrams, but the REAL difference is the crew and we have the finest trained TANK crews in the world and we've proved it in EVERY War since WWII.

I agree, but that not all that matters. If the tanks won't even start or run right, you have problems. It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles the T-90 has, if the Russian Army is selling off parts for vodka and food. And if the Russians were to sell some to, say Iran, their soldiers just don't have the know-how and experience to match us tank vs tank.

Don't get lulled into too many "We're so superior!" myths. especially when it comes to the Russian fighting man. The Germans got caught up in that around Stalingrad, and when the commies came rolling out of the flying snow in over-whelming numbers back by the T-34 tank, that they were (supposedly) too stoneaged-mentality to develop - the Germans found themselves facing their own self-made annihilation. We constantly, as a society, look down on Russian technology (almost in a racist fashion) in hopes it will somehow be true, and protect us via such myths from the boogeyman. But the fact is, they build very good equipment; their troops would be very dedicated if they got a chance to use it against us (their boogieman); and they would probably stick with their old strategy of 10 to 1 odds which they followed during all of the Cold War. The Abrams might be good, but if 10 T-90s go after it, the results will be pretty predictable. If you don't think so, then study up on what happened to Panther and Tiger tanks that hit the same odds against inferior T-34s in WW II. It was the Russians who rolled into Berlin, if I remember correctly - -

The Panther was a German copy of that "inferior" T-34. (it was kept a secret from Hitler that the Germans were actually copying the Russian tank)

The Tiger was developed to defeat the "inferior" T-34 and the JS-1.